applied in enforcing the law. Nothing makes
that harder than the utterly unforgivable behaviour of those hon. Members
who do everything in their power to undermine the process.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Does the Secretary of State accept
that the most unbelievably arrogant part of his statement was his assertion
that he would "improve the quality of local decision making"? That came
from a representative of a Government the quality of whose decision making
has so far cost us £13.5 billion. Will the Secretary of State assure
us that any future assessment or review of the quality of decision making
will include the quality of decision making in the Tory Government?

Mr. Heseltine : If the hon. Gentleman had spent even a tiny fraction
of the time that my hon. Friends and I have spent consulting local
councils, he would have discovered that what I said about the ability to
manage local authorities and about the sort of people now attracted to them
was not a party matter. Everyone is preoccupied about the problem of
finding men and women with the time and resource to give to that vital part
of our national life. By turning this into a party issue, the hon.
Gentleman simply trivialises the debate.

Mr. David Howell ( Guildford) : My right hon. Friend is to be
commended on his unwavering determination to reform the structure,
functions and financing of local government together, rather than--as in
the past, with such unhappy results--separately. Certainly he will not get
an atom of constructive help from the Labour party. My right hon. Friend
has not mentioned business taxation, although he did talk about a wider
local government tax base. Will business taxation still be left out? Does
he recall that a previous Secretary of State, during our debates on local
business taxation, assured the House that close and intimate links between
the local authorities and businesses in their areas would be reinforced?

Mr. Heseltine : I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his
kind remarks. It is fundamental that, in the review, the structure,
functions and financing of local government be linked. In my statement, I
made it clear that the Government have no intention at present to make
changes in the uniform business rate arrangements.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : Has not the main cause of
the suffering and turmoil in local government been the successive cuts in
rate support grant--from 60 per cent. in 1979 to 42 per cent. today? The
burden of taxation was switched from central government to local government
so that the Government might take the credit for tax cuts, and the local
authorities the blame for increased rates and cuts in services. Was not the
purpose of the poll tax to sweep away Labour local government by imposing a
large charge on everyone in the hope that the town halls would get the
blame? The British people had too much intelligence to fall for that
scheme. It backfired and swept away the right hon. Member for Finchley
(Mrs. Thatcher). Is not the present commotion the sound of panic-stricken
rats deserting the flagship?

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. The
switch in resources, at the expense of the

Column 414

local payer, whether of rates or of the
community charge, began in 1976 under the right hon. Member for Bethnal
Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). By 1979, the rate support grant had been
reduced to 61 per cent. It is perfectly true that the change continued
thereafter. Not until the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor
delivered on Tuesday was the direction reversed. The reversal is to be
maintained at about the present rate.

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that
many of our constituents fully supported the principles that lay behind the
community charge but thought that there were faults in the way in which it
was implemented? People will feel that the proposals that he has presented
in outline today meet the criteria and, at the same time, are practical. I
congratulate him on his refusal to be pushed into presenting detailed
proposals at this stage, and on his intention to put the matter out to
consultation. That will provide the opportunity to ensure that, before
matters are finalised, there has been proper discussion, that details have
been worked out, and possible anomalies avoided.

Mr. Heseltine : I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his
remarks. We have tried very hard to adopt an evolutionary approach. The
local tax meets certain criteria that are widely accepted, especially in
the Conservative party. It is absolutely fundamental that changes of this
sort be introduced following consultation with the people who will have to
apply them. That is what we are doing, and we have no intention of allowing
ourselves to be stampeded or forced to move faster than we think is
compatible with proper completion of the job.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : Can the Secretary of State
tell us whether women with no personal income who stay at home to look
after their families will be expected to pay the new poll tax, head tax,
adult tax--or whatever he calls it--and whether the joint and several
liability proposals will still apply?

Mr. Heseltine : If the hon. Lady waits until we have produced the
consultation document, she will see the assumptions upon which it is based.
There will, of course, be a rebate scheme associated with our proposals. As
for the period between now and the introduction, in 1993, of our local tax
proposals, we have no intention at present to change the incidence of the
scheme.

Sir Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South) : My right hon. Friend the
Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) appears to have confused
the Ides of March with the equinox--not that either appears to be
particularly relevant.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on one aspect in particular of his
excellent statement, and that is the proposal to introduce more unitary
authorities, which has the great merit of making it easier for the taxpayer
to identify excessive spending authorities. Is he aware that that is
particularly relevant in Lancashire, where there used to be several county
boroughs and where we now have an excessively spending Labour-controlled
county council?

Mr. Heseltine : My right hon. Friend represents his constituents
extremely effectively because when I was in Blackpool not long ago I was
left in no doubt about the depth of feeling there. I must not prejudge any
local

Column 415

consultations or recommendations of the
local government commission, but I understand exactly the strength of
feeling.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : In relation to the £140 per head
subsidy for the poll tax mark 1, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that
it is wholly unrelated to the demands on, or resources of, the local
authority? If there is to be a subsidy for the poll tax in the current
year, should it not be based on the principle, from each according to his
resources and to each according to his needs? In relation to the poll tax
mark 2, will the registration arrangements be substantially different from
those obtaining now?

Mr. Heseltine : I have already said that it is possible in the new
arrangements that a register of the sort associated with the community
charge will not be necessary. It is a detailed and technical matter that
must be looked at. We shall be putting forward in the consultation document
a number of options--they are not firm proposals now--to deal with the
matter because it is important, as I have said several times, that the
local authorities become involved at this stage in advising on the most
effective way forward. If the Labour party decides to end its ostrich-like
silence, we shall listen to what Opposition Members, along with everybody
else, have to say.

Sir William Shelton (Streatham) : There will be great sighs of
relief among my constituents in Lambeth as a consequence of the abolition
of the community charge. Will my right hon. Friend please use his powers to
cap the Lambeth budget, which is £8 million or £9 million above
the £307 million allowed by the Government? On the other hand, will he
urge his Department to be as sympathetic as possible over the back debt
repayment due to Lambeth's inefficiency over many years? He must be aware
that, of the present poll tax set by Lambeth, little over half is going to
pay for the services of the council and the remainder towards the wretched
debt accumulated by its inefficiency.

Mr. Heseltine : I am wholly in agreement with my hon. Friend. The
new system that we introduce will, of course, be seen as a fair system, but
it will also reflect the need for local authorities to bear down on their
expenditure patterns. That principle will remain with the new system. It is
worth saying that it is not just the community charge that the Lambeth
authority does not collect. It does not collect the rents, and it did not
collect the rates before the community charge was introduced. The most
profound anxieties are developing about that local authority. They exist
across the Floor of the House, and there are deep and justifiable concerns
on the part of the Labour party because, after all, that party is in
control there.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : In the muddle of
criteria, platitudes and principles contained in the Secretary of State's
announcement, he seemed to forget two principles that we used to hear from
the Conservatives. The first was that one could not solve problems by
throwing money at them--even though the Conservatives then threw £4.25
billion at the poll tax problem--and, secondly, that the Government had no
money of their own because it was all taxpayers' money. Those two points
seemed to escape the right hon. Gentleman as he tried to get out of the
muddle into which the Conservatives got themselves.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman think it behoves Opposition Members to
give him advice now when he was

Column 416

so well advised by us before he introduced
the poll tax? We gave him advice on Second Reading, in Committee and on
Third Reading of the measure which introduced the poll tax. He took no
notice whatever of our advice. Why should we think that he will take notice
of any advice that we give him now?

Mr. Heseltine : The more I listen to Labour Members, the more I
wonder why I keep asking them whether they want to join the consultative
process. Patently they have little to say. If I may offer a personal word
of advice in commenting on the hon. Gentleman's welcome conversion to the
view that one cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, it is lucky
for him that there are so few of his hon. Friends left or he might be
deselected.

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East) : Will my right hon. Friend
accept that many of us are relieved that the new proposals which he has
announced today will take account of ability to pay because that is a fair
system which is essential to any new tax? Will he accept that I and many of
my hon. Friends to whom I have spoken about the matter will do all that we
can to unite the party and the people behind the proposals, which this time
have been fully discussed and agreed within a united Government and a
united Cabinet? In the review, will he pay particular attention to the
peculiar way in which the community charge operated among our armed
services, who were subject to whims of movement over which they had no
control and who must be considered fairly in the new arrangements?

Mr. Heseltine : I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for
drawing attention to the consideration that we have given to members of the
armed forces. If I may pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for
Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister in my Department who has taken a
particular interest in the matter, he has showed great concern for those
who played such a conspicuous part in the Gulf. We must all be grateful to
him.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr.
Mates) for referring to the fact that I have stressed ability to pay. My
hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in these matters, and I am glad that
he feels that what we have done today reflects his concern.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Bearing in mind that the Secretary
of State referred to a £140 reduction, will he tell us how many people
will get a reduction of less than £140 under the new system, taking
into account the first transitional relief scheme, the second tranche of
transitional relief and the fact that some people pay only 20 per cent.?
Since the Tories have consistently told us that 11 million people are not
paying the full poll tax, can the Secretary of State tell us how many will
not get the reduction of £140 and whether some will not get anything
at all?

Mr. Heseltine : All the hon. Gentleman has pointed out is how
generous are the schemes that we have already announced. Of course, if we
have given people benefits once, we cannot give them benefits again.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : May I thank my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
for listening to those of us who come from low-rated areas in the north-
west for lifting the burden from us? May I thank the Secretary of

Column 417

State too for giving county towns the
prospect of running their own affairs, as my colleagues in Blackpool and
all the other areas wish to do, so that we may have the opportunity of
getting out from under Lancashire county council once and for all?

Mr. Heseltine : I welcome my hon. Friend's observations. The north-
west is a particularly important part of the country and we have considered
its problems carefully. Again, I am enthusiastic about the way in which my
hon. Friend is indicating that there may be local interest in some of the
changes that we have in mind. I am sure that she will play her usual active
part in pursuing them.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : The Secretary of
State is well known for wanting to get rid of the poll tax, and his
Minister of State is well known for wanting to retain it. I am concerned,
therefore, that when the Secretary of State was making his statement the
Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was nodding in agreement.

It appears that we will get the worst of both worlds--a poll tax based on
property. Can the Secretary of State tell me how the tax will be collected?
Who will be responsible? Will each person be responsible for his own tax,
or will one person in the property be responsible for the whole lot? As he
is now keen on consultation, will the Secretary of State overrule his
office and meet the leaders of South Yorkshire county council--the South
Yorkshire authority--whom his office has refused to meet concerning a
difference of opinion among his office, the Department of Transport and
ourselves about the funding of the super tram?

Mr. Heseltine : We are in some confusion as to which authority the
hon. Member has in mind, but we run an ever-open-door policy in the
Department of the Environment and I am sure that we will bring our usual
courteous attention to bear on any formal requests that we receive.

The hon. Member referred to the support that my hon. Friend the Minister
for Local Government and Inner Cities was giving to what I said during my
statement. It would have been impossible--if I do not embarrass him in
front of the Prime Minister--for any Minister to give more support to the
Secretary of State than my hon. Friend has given me on this matter.

The hon. Member asked how we will collect this local tax. I said in my
statement that there would be a single bill to the household ; and that
will be exemplified in more detail in our consultative document.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am very anxious to ensure that all hon.
Members who wish to put a question on this very important matter shall do
so. I ask hon. Members, in view of the fact that many of the questions have
been answered by the Secretary of State, to put new questions and perhaps
single questions, and then all of them will be called.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : I have never made a
secret of my support for the community charge, but, as one who has the
misfortune to represent a constituency in the ghastly overspending county
of

Column 418

Humberside, may I tell my right hon. Friend
that the structural reform proposals that he has announced today make his
statement worth studying very closely with a view to giving it wholehearted
support, not only on the structure but also on the finance? It is the
structural reform as well as what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer said on Tuesday which makes it possible now for us to get
local government bills down for the people who have to pay them.

Mr. Heseltine : In the spirit of the day, I shall have to continue
my consultations with my hon. Friend in order to be sure that he can give
me wholehearted support later on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Is it not fair to say that
what the Secretary of State has announced today is nothing more and nothing
less than poll tax mark 2, insofar as it relates to the number of
individuals in a household and will also call upon information held in the
register of electors? Is that not the case?

Mr. Heseltine : No change is necessary in the basis of collecting
information in any new system that we have in mind. No one has raised this
issue as a problem in the course of designing it. No one has raised it with
me as a problem in moving from the community charge to the local tax, so I
have no reason to suppose that there is any problem that I must account
for.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : As we have so acceptably slashed the
burden of the community charge upon the charge payer, and as my right hon.
Friend has so courageously decided that we could get rid of county councils
if the local authorities wanted, some of us are left wondering why it is
necessary to introduce a complex property tax which most of us have spoken
against for the past 20 or 25 years. Will my right hon. Friend give some
assurance that refusal to pay this tax, which might be branded as
uncollectable, will not be a reason for withdrawing it in due course?

Mr. Heseltine : I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will feel
that, as the last question but one referred to it as a poll tax and he sees
it as a property tax, it may be that I am entitled to insist that it is a
local tax and cannot be defined in any of the neat packages that are being
used so to do. I believe that it will be seen as a tax which complies with
the principles that I have set out, which means that most people will pay
towards it, it will reflect people's ability to pay and it will be seen as
fair. It is in no way capable of being described by either of the labels
put on it. What I have said today is not a prescription for getting rid of
counties or districts ; it is to look at the administration of local
government on the ground and come to a view of what makes sense.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does the Secretary of State
realise that, ever since he first became Secretary of State for the
Environment, local government has suffered greater difficulty and its
ability to deliver quality services has been reduced? Is he aware that this
review will further prejudice the ability of local government to work
properly and that it will reduce the confidence and the professional
expertise of those who are professionally involved?

When the Secretary of State says that the 22 per cent. and the means of
obtaining it will be reviewed, does he

Column 419

include by definition the poll tax or "head"
element, or would he permit other ways of raising that relatively modest 22
per cent. of tax?

Mr. Heseltine : I do not identify the figures that the hon. Member
gave from what I have said. If he has any further exemplification that he
wants to put to me, perhaps he will write to me and I will try to deal with
it. I cannot accept for a moment, however, that what I have proposed will
do other than enhance the possibilities and prospects for local government.
In all seriousness, my Ministers and I have spent an inordinate amount of
time, with great pleasure, talking to councillors of all political parties
who have put to us a remarkable consensus of view on what should be done ;
and it will not serve the best interests of local government if the Labour
party now tries to besmirch the opportunities that we are determined to
achieve.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : My right hon. Friend's statement
will receive a warm welcome in my constituency where it will be widely seen
as promoting a fair system of providing local government finance, in
particular, his assurance that properties in the south-east will not be
disproportionately disadvantaged because of high value. Will he take it
from me, however, that there is a disproportionate disadvantage to business
properties in the south-east which were revalued at a time of historic
highs in trading and where the UBR has had a disproportionately large
impact?

Mr. Heseltine : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can reaffirm our
clear awareness of the imbalances that are thrown up by capital values
between one part of the country and another. When we publish our
consultation document, my hon. Friend can rest assured that we will address
that issue directly. We are also quite aware that there have been changes
in valuation since the initial uniform business rate valuations. There are
proposals for a regular revaluation process, but I would be very surprised
if we have not seen a restoration, at least in substantial part, of the
values of south-eastern property by the time we get to that point.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is the Secretary of State aware
that, as long as everyone in the household has to pay the same amount of
money minus any rebate, it will be totally unacceptable? Why is it that the
Secretary of State and, indeed, the Cabinet have responded to those members
of the Conservative party in the House of Commons who clearly want to keep
the poll tax, as has been indicated this afternoon, instead of listening to
the overwhelming number of people who time and again have said that they
want no poll tax, mark 1, mark 2, mark 3 or anything else? Is it not clear
that when the elections come--the May local government elections and the
general election--the British people will reject the mark 2 poll tax as
they have rejected the mark 1 tax?

Mr. Heseltine : I am sure that the hon. Member will do his best with
wholly inadequate arguments to put that case forward, but he will find that
it is not very successful, particularly as he will have to explain how his
own party is proposing to go to one system of local government finance in
one year and then tear the whole thing up and go to another in the
following year. He will also have to explain how his party will finance
both those systems when

Column 420

it has rejected the proposal of my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put £4.25 billion into
the system.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Is my right hon. Friend
aware that in south Staffordshire there will be few tears for the poll tax
but many cheers for the courage that the Prime Minister and he have
displayed? Is he further aware that as long ago as 1974, when the Labour
party was in office, our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and
Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was co-sponsor of a Bill which would have
introduced the sort of system that he is now advocating and which would
have saved us a great deal of aggro?

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend will not expect me to go too far back
in history. When dealing with local government, history has a way of
rearing up and smiting one. I thank my hon. Friend for the tribute that he
paid to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has unquestionably
played the decisive role in bringing about the conclusion that I have
announced today.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : The Prime Minister said on
Monday night that the poll tax was uncollectable because so many people
were not paying it and the courts were overloaded. Does the Secretary of
State realise that, despite the rout today and on Tuesday, in the words of
a saying, it is not over until it is over, and it is not even over then?
There are 15 million people in Scotland, England and Wales facing
prosecution, the threat of bailiffs or the threat of gaol and the Secretary
of State has said nothing about them today. Unless that threat is lifted
and compensation is provided to the millions of others who went into debt
to try to pay the poll tax, he will find that those numbers will increase
from 1 April and that the flagship of the right hon. Member for Finchley
(Mrs. Thatcher) will be his Titanic.

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I made express
reference to that point, and the answer is clear. The law is the law and
bills have to be paid.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley) : I congratulate my
right hon. Friend on his excellent proposals. Will he bear in mind the
reprehensible behaviour of authorities such as mine in Birmingham, which,
in setting the new poll tax level, incorporated the Government's
transitional relief of 65 per cent. and £25 extra to allow for non-
payers of the present rate, making the total £150 higher than the
Conservative proposals? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the non-
payers are brought to heel as 50 per cent. of them have followed the advice
of Birmingham city councillors about non-payment and are council employees?

Mr. Heseltine : I share my hon. Friend's concern. Perhaps he will
share the dilemma of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who knows
that the irresponsible behaviour of Labour councillors is an every-day,
inbuilt definition of the job that he does.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Does not the Secretary of State think
that keeping the poll tax in 1992-93 as well as in 1991-92 is totally
unacceptable? Does he have so little confidence in his hybrid tax that he
has to keep the poll tax that extra year? If by any horror the Tories
should win the

Column 421

next general election, what is to stop the
headline figure for the poll tax for 1992-93 soaring again? Is not the poll
tax still the curse of the undead?

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman obviously did not follow my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement. He made it clear that he intends to
preserve in subsequent years the balance that he has struck for 1991-92. Of
course that will not deal with overspending local authorities. It will deal
with Government support and maintain it at the same levels as have been
broadly outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but if local
authorities choose to overspend it will still leave bills of unacceptable
levels for the local community.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we should move faster. The practical
solution is that there is no way of moving from where we are today in a
quicker time scale than that I have outlined. That is why the Labour party
is prepared to inflict on local government two different systems in two
consecutive years.

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Somerton and Frome) : Does my right hon. Friend
accept that many of us supported the community charge because of the
unfairness and inequality of the old rating system? I feel sure that my
right hon. Friend will agree that it is absolutely right to hold further
discussions with the people who thought that the community charge was
unfair. Let them give their views as to how we can make the new tax fairer.
Let us hear their views before we settle into another system.

Mr. Heseltine : I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. We have
considered this matter carefully in Government and have decided that there
must be a degree of certainty about our intentions. That is why we have
announced that our new local tax will be in place, hopefully, by 1993-94,
which we believe is the earliest practical time that that can be achieved.
I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point about the unfairness of the old
rating system. That is one reason why one is utterly aghast that the Labour
party wants to bring it back.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Is the Secretary of State aware
that he has cut a sad and sorry figure today? He has looked and sounded
like an old-style ship owner with a leaky old tub on his hands who is not
sure how much longer it will stay afloat, how much longer passengers will
be willing to pay, how much he is willing to charge them or how he will
count them on board. I appeal to the Secretary of State and, more
importantly, to the Prime Minister to ease the grief and misery of the
British public, sweep away all the commissions, consultative documents and
discussion papers and let the people of Britain have a general election so
that they can choose between the Tory poll tax mark 2 and Labour's fair
rates plans.

Mr. Heseltine : If the hon. Gentleman is pressing my right hon.
Friend the Prime Minister to hold a general election so that the electorate
may be better informed, I am sure that he will press his right hon. Friends
on the Front Bench to provide the basic information needed to enable a
proper judgment to be made about the relative merits of both systems.

Column 422

Mr. Ian Stewart (Hertfordshire, North) : I thank my right hon.
Friend and his colleagues for the care and thoroughness with which they
conducted the consultations before bringing forward today's proposals. I
also thank my right hon. Friend for taking into account the fact that many
of us believe that there were not only serious defects in the rating system
and the community charge but that by avoiding those and incorporating the
better part of those two systems the proposals are likely to command
widespread approval in the House and outside. Will my right hon. Friend be
reassured about the effectiveness of his statement by the looks of
frustration and disappointment on the faces of Opposition Members?

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has made a discerning observation
about the Labour party. It might feel that one of its arguments had
disappeared out of the window.

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : In setting out his proposals for the
longer term, the Secretary of State said that most people should make some
contribution. Until now the Government have insisted that everyone must pay
at least 20 per cent. Who will be exempt in the future, and why cannot
those categories and individuals be exempt now?

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman has obviously not followed the
way in which the community charge works. The 20 per cent. was, in large
measure, reimbursed through the social security system for those on full
benefit.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : I warmly congratulate my
right hon. Friend on his statement. I represent a constituency where
average house prices in relation to average incomes are much higher than in
most parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend pay special care and
attention to the need to ensure that in those circumstances the new system
of local taxation will be fair and reasonable?

Mr. Heseltine : I assure my hon. Friends that we are fully aware of
the regional disparity in capital values and the need, therefore, to
address that specifically. It will be in the consultation paper. I would go
further than that. Like everybody else, I keep an eye on what is reported
in the newspapers. I have seen figures quoted for the effect of the
proposals that we have in mind for certain parts of the country,
principally the south-east, which bear no relationship to reality.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Will there be a new poll
tax register for the new poll tax, or will the electoral register be used?
Different answers have been given to different Opposition Members. It will
be a disgrace if the electoral register is used because it will be a direct
tax on electoral registration, and that would concern us all. Even with a
separate poll tax register, last year 600,000 people were missing from the
electoral register. Will the Government produce figures for the position
this year? The problem is that these proposals are simply an attempt to
have something to say in a general election.

Mr. Heseltine : I have answered that question several times. I said
that under the new system we shall not need a register. I have made that
clear. Answers to such quesitions will be clear in the consultation
document.

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : Does my right hon. Friend
accept that his statement will receive a broad

Column 423

welcome, not least because of the proposed
review of structure and functions? Does he agree that the unitary
authorities of the 32 London boroughs provide a good example of successful
structures? Does he also agree that it is necessary to consider the
functions of local government expenditure, especially with regard to
national services such as the police and fire services?

Mr. Heseltine : I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend. The unitary
model in London is preferable to that which existed before, especially for
the large urban conurbations. There is no question but that the
Government's decision to get rid of the Greater London council, the
metropolitan counties and, later, the Inner London education authority has
been a remarkable success. It clarified matters and saved money and jobs.
That is important. In the context of the review, I do not think that we
intend to make further changes to the structure of the London authorities.
However, the functions that they perform and their internal management
would be included in the consultative process that I have described.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does the Secretary of State
acknowledge that, had the rate support grant remained at its 1978-79 level,
the current poll tax would not be £250, as is proposed, but £150?
Are not the Government the biggest robbers from local government funds? The
record of the Government's attack on Labour-controlled authorities dates
back to the Local Government Act 1972, which was the first to cause chaos,
to the attack on the metropolitan county councils and on the GLC, all of
which were Labour controlled and all of which were abolished because of a
political vendetta carried on by the right hon. Gentleman and his cronies.
What safeguards will he provide to ensure that the local government
commission will not be a Tory quango with the sole aim--secretly, behind
closed Whitehall doors--of abolishing Labour-controlled authorities?

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. The idea
would not have occurred to me if he had not put it into my mind. Having
considered it--albeit briefly--I reject it. As is customary, the
independence of the commission will be secured.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Does my right hon.
Friend agree that it is only as a result of the introduction of the
community charge that local spending was put under the spotlight by
encouraging all members of the community to analyse the quality of services
and the calibre of councillors? I have no objection to any of his proposals
because they marry two systems. Had he not retained an assessment of the
number of people in a house but reverted to the archaic system proposed by
the Opposition, this would be an old-fashioned party. I welcome the fact
that he will continue to consider carefully the internal workings of local
authorities. If not, there could be no guarantees of value for money. We
must consider contracting out the management of housing and education. If
my right hon. Friend wants evidence of poor housing management, will he
please come to Wolverhampton? I could fill a book for him.

Mr. Heseltine : It looks as though I shall be busy visiting my hon.
Friends' constituencies, which will be a great pleasure. I support what my
hon. Friend said. She has particular expertise in internal management
systems. I

Column 424

agree that that issue has not been
considered for too long, but it will be considered in the consultation
exercise that we have promised today.

My statement reflected my agreement that we must move further and faster
towards the concept of enabling authorities to offer choice and have
competition and to see the vast baronies of power moved from the public
sector to a more competitive sector. The idea of marrying two systems by
reflecting the number of people in a household was always one of the
preferred ingredients of the package from the earliest days of our review.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar) : How will the Secretary of State's
announcement affect one policy which especially concerns the public and
which local authorities are already trying to implement--community care?

Mr. Heseltine : I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that
question. The Government have announced their plans. Local authorities know
the timetable, and nothing that I have said today changes the Government's
known position.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : This is today's shortest
question : can we have Rutland county council back, please?

Mr. Heseltine : I am tempted to say, "If you want it", but I must be
allowed to define "you" in a very wide compass.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Much of the Secretary of State's
statement was taken up with setting up consultations and commissions to
rectify the actions taken by the Government since 1979 and the
reorganisation by the previous Tory Government of 1970-74. The words that
he used to commend the sanitised version of the poll tax--poll tax 2--were
similar to those used to commend the original version. Why should the
people of Burnley, which is Labour controlled and has a low poll tax, and
the people of Ribble Valley, part of which I represent, which is Tory
controlled and has a high poll tax, have confidence that the Government
have got it right? How much has this sorry saga cost the nation over the
past two years?

Mr. Heseltine : The people of Burnley may like to consider the level
of expenditure in the Labour-controlled county council of Lancashire. That
might colour their view. The verdict in Ribble Valley is that we shall have
a Tory Member of Parliament there after the next election.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : I shall do my best to call hon. Members. Will they
please ask brief questions?

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : Since most questions have already
been asked, besides welcoming the excellent statement, may I ask my right
hon. Friend about local government reorganisation? Does he intend to give
greater powers to parish councils, especially on planning matters? May I
also ask about privatisation and contracting out? Does he envisage the
contracting out of planning departments and their architects and planners?

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend asks two interesting questions. I
have no plans to change the present regimes of the parishes. I do not wish
today to be drawn on the

Column 425

question of contracting out planning
departments, but there are some interesting ideas about how they could be
changed.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : I welcome my right hon. Friend's
recognition of the strength of the unitary authorities and the essential
factors of comparability between authorities and accountability. If a
consensus emerges for the assessment to be based on capital values, will my
right hon. Friend consider carefully the idea of capital values being based
on rebuilding costs rather than on market values? That might help to smooth
out things across the country.

Mr. Heseltine : I am aware that there are many ways of assessing
capital values, one of which is by reference to building costs. I ask my
hon. Friend to wait for the publication of our consultative document, which
will set out a range of options. We can then hold detailed discussions.